Sci-Fi, Tim Minear remaking "Alien Nation"
David
Sci Fi cops a remake of 'Alien' tale
Network to develop new take on 'Nation'
Sci Fi is developing a new take on "Alien Nation," the 1988 feature
that previously spawned a spinoff series on Fox.
"Angel" alum Tim Minear -- no stranger to sci-fi tales, having worked
on "The X-Files," "Firefly" and "Strange World" -- is penning the
fresh take on the franchise. Fox 21, the alternative production arm of
20th Century Fox TV, will produce.
"Alien Nation" centers on the partnership between a veteran cop and
his alien detective partner, set against the larger tale of alien
"newcomers" who move to Earth and attempt to assimilate into society.
Fox 21 topper Chris Carlisle said he believed "Alien Nation" could rep
the next franchise revival for Sci Fi, which found huge success in
dusting off "Battlestar Galactica" and reworking it for today's auds.
Carlisle said "Alien Nation" works both as a sci-fi piece and a
procedural drama.
"It's absolute perfect timing for this type of show," Carlisle said.
"They're looking for more grounded sci-fi and close-ended episodes,
and at the heart of 'Alien Nation,' it's a cop movie. It's grounded.
And it has a tremendous amount of dramatic possibilities and humor."
Sci Fi is also looking to broaden its footprint, as it preps to
rebrand itself as "Syfy" next week.
"It's very much in keeping with what we've been looking to do -- find
themes that are more than just hard sci-fi, something that feels
contemporary and relevant and invites a broad audience in," said Sci
Fi original programming exec VP Mark Stern.
The new "Alien Nation" would include a mythology that evolves over
time and will also touch on some of the issues of the day, such as the
immigrant experience and how society integrates an incoming culture.
Minear said he's looking forward to incorporating a mix of all the
different kinds of series he's written in the past.
"It's genre mixed with procedural mixed with funny and mixed with big,
giant scary," Minear said. "I love serialized stuff, but this is also
a cop franchise. That 'Starsky and Hutch'/'Lethal Weapon' buddy cop
comedy is absent from TV right now."
Minear is currently busy outlining the "Alien Nation" script and
mapping out the project's mythology. The new "Alien Nation" will
likely take place in the Pacific Northwest, and will take place about
20 years after the first ship of aliens - who have been banished as
slaves - crash lands into Earth.
By the time the show begins, some time in the 2020s, the alien
population has multiplied from a few thousand to 3.5 million. And much
of the "newcomers" live their own segregated existence, in what Minear
compares to the North African ghettos in France.
"You can take (the original 'Alien Nation') a step forward and really
do a show that encompasses the clash of civilizations, and the idea of
a ghettoized minority," he said. "You can touch on racism, terrorism,
assimilation, immigration. And there's room for satire."
The original film, which took place in 1991, was helmed by Graham
Baker and written by Rockne S. O'Bannon (with an uncredited revise by
James Cameron). Mandy Patinkin and James Caan starred as alien cop Sam
Francisco and his reluctant human partner, respectively; Terence Stamp
also starred.
In 1989, 20th Century Fox TV and Kenneth Johnson Prods. adapted the
movie for Fox, with Eric Pierpoint and Gary Graham in the lead roles.
The show lasted just a single season but spawned a series of books.
The TV show was revived in 1994 as a series of telepics for Fox,
starting with "Alien Nation: Dark Horizon." Five TV movies were
ultimately aired; the last, "Alien Nation: The Udara Legacy," ran in
1997.
Stern said Sci Fi had been looking at "Alien Nation" as a potential
franchise for several years and had talked to several writers about
ways to update the concept for modern auds.
"The challenge is how do you do it in a way that will reinvent it
without it feeling like a derivative rehash," he said. "We sat down
with Tim, who is someone we'd been looking to work with for quite a
while, and his approach felt like it wouldn't be a traditional
adaptation. We got excited."
Minear said he'd been anxious to develop for cable - and in
particular, Sci Fi. The success of "Battlestar" fueled his interest in
reviving "Alien Nation," he said.
"Twenty years (after 'Alien Nation'), TV as a whole has evolved, and
you can explore issues and go deeper with subject matter than you ever
could before," Minear said. "On cable, you can play with ambiguity.
This is a place I want to be."
Rich
don't even remember the TV series. If they want to do a "buddy cop"
franchise, what is wrong with NEW CHARACTERS?
Dimensional Traveler
Studios won't buy NEW (unless you've already established yourself as a
mover and shaker by successfully re-doing other people's work first).
--
Things I learned from MythBusters #57: Never leave a loaded gun in an
exploding room.
Stephen O'Connell
> Rich wrote:
>> James Caan and Mandy Patinkin were very entertaining in the movie. I
>> don't even remember the TV series. If they want to do a "buddy cop"
>> franchise, what is wrong with NEW CHARACTERS?
>
> Studios won't buy NEW (unless you've already established yourself as a
> mover and shaker by successfully re-doing other people's work first).
Indeed. After all, what is NEW these days?!
SueB1863
even that old. It got canceled because of declining ratings, I can't
see a newer version being a hit when people didn't want to watch the
good, original version. They've already dealt with everything this
article talks about!
shawn
wrote:
>James Caan and Mandy Patinkin were very entertaining in the movie. I
>don't even remember the TV series. If they want to do a "buddy cop"
>franchise, what is wrong with NEW CHARACTERS?
Do you mean new characters or a new series? I think we will get
different characters from the movie and the series so that won't be a
problem. As to the idea of doing a new series it's the same problem
that's always been involved in the film/TV industry. People are risk
averse and so they don't want to take a chance on a brand new concept.
So they think it's better to fund new series that are either remakes
of an old idea (one that they can understand and believe they can
sell) or one that might be new but feels much like some other series.
Hence the idea of the "Star Trek" series as "Wagon Train" in space.
Fel
only 4 of which will air. Of course episodes 7-13 would have been the
best hours of TV that season...
Mark
Obveeus
"David" <diml...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://www.variety.com/article/VR1118005577.html?categoryid=14&cs=1
>
> Sci Fi cops a remake of 'Alien' tale
> Network to develop new take on 'Nation'
>
> Sci Fi is developing a new take on "Alien Nation," the 1988 feature
> that previously spawned a spinoff series on Fox.
I enjoyed the original movie and the TV series, so I will be on board to
sample this one as well. The prior efforts both did an excellent job of
contrasting 'racial' and wealth disparity issues.
Hunter
25975a...@i6g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>, diml...@yahoo.com says...
Great!!! I'm looking forward to it! I loved the old show.
--
----->Hunter
"No man in the wrong can stand up against
a fellow that's in the right and keeps on acomin'."
-----William J. McDonald
Captain, Texas Rangers from 1891 to 1907
Kate
Hm, I'm torn. I loved the old series, even bought it on DVD, but
Kenneth Johnson is a master at taking old material and making it
golden.
I didn't really care for the BSG reimagining - it had potential, but
the ultimate execution didn't live up to the hype, IMHO. And the
suits at SyFy are idiots - the fact that they've changed the name to
SyFy pretty much sums *that* up.
Another poster was correct, that the original series already dealt
with the things Tim Minear lists, as well as sex and religion, in a
very creative way. And in only one season, to boot.
Guess I'll wait and see, but they've got big shoes to fill.
Kate
unfrostedpoptart
> Er - the TV series that was already done was just fine and it's not
> even that old. It got canceled because of declining ratings,
That's not true according to articles quoting Fox. It was actually
doing well, but Fox was new and the show was eating a ton of their
money to make.
> I can't
> see a newer version being a hit when people didn't want to watch the
> good, original version. They've already dealt with everything this
> article talks about!
Agree. Between the series, books, and TV movies, it's done. Also, the
last movie was only a bit over 10 years ago. I'm sure they'll butcher
it. If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
original.
Sean Eric Fagan
unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>original.
While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
Because it's based on something already created, that creator credit (and
payments) that don't have to be done again -- they're already contracted out,
and the people who would get paid for that have no ability to renegotiate.
Because it's based on something that's already been vetted, they don't have as
much work to do for rights -- they don't have to worry as much that someone
will claim something written in the past 10 years, for example, was stolen.
And prioer to ten years, the lawyers have already done the work.
Lastly, they may be trying to pressure someone else into paying, or ride their
marketing coattails. There's a movie coming up with a very simialr premise
(although I'm blanking on the title now -- Area/Section <number>).
himiko
> Another poster was correct, that the original series already dealt
> with the things Tim Minear lists, as well as sex and religion, in a
> very creative way. And in only one season, to boot.
>
> Guess I'll wait and see, but they've got big shoes to fill.
Pretty much sums it up for me too. I'll give it a shot. It was an
interesting premise and mostly well done, especially by the standards
of the time. And Tim Minear is no slouch, so it might be good.
himiko
Dimensional Traveler
> On Jul 1, 3:53 am, SueB1863 <sueb1...@earthlink.net> wrote:
>> Er - the TV series that was already done was just fine and it's not
>> even that old. It got canceled because of declining ratings,
>
> That's not true according to articles quoting Fox. It was actually
> doing well, but Fox was new and the show was eating a ton of their
> money to make.
>
rates that would have generated the desired profit level.
Hunter
917d53...@x3g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>, sueb...@earthlink.net
says...
Why? Two words: "Battlestar Galactica." The new version was far more
successful than the old. And the old "Alien Nation" wasn't doing that
badly anyway. I think it got the same treatment "Rome" got on HBO: A
show doing well in the ratings but was simply to expensive to
maintain despite the ratings. After all if it was doing that bad why
make several follow up movies?
Arthur Lipscomb
"Hunter" <buffh...@my-deja.com> wrote in message
news:MPG.24b55196c...@news.optonline.net...
Same here. And the premise of the show really allows for unlimited story
possibilities. I just hope they make it a continuation of the old show,
even if they introduce new characters.
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>Why? Two words: "Battlestar Galactica." The new version was far more
>successful than the old. And the old "Alien Nation" wasn't doing that
>badly anyway.
Actually "Alien Nation" hadn't been doing badly at all. The
problem was that Fox routinely cancelled shows that they considered
"iffy" trying to take bets on something that had higher ratings... In
those days African-American Comedy.
>I think it got the same treatment "Rome" got on HBO: A
>show doing well in the ratings but was simply to expensive to
>maintain despite the ratings. After all if it was doing that bad why
>make several follow up movies?
The same reason why any studio makes sequels and follow-ups...
To see if there's enough of a fan base for a revival.
--
-=-=-/ )=*=-='=-.-'-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
_( (_ , '_ * . Merrick Baldelli
(((\ \> /_1 `
(\\\\ \_/ /
-=-\ /-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
\ _/ Who are these folks and why have they
/ / stopped taking their medication?
- Captain Infinity
Merrick Baldelli
wrote:
>James Caan and Mandy Patinkin were very entertaining in the movie. I
>don't even remember the TV series. If they want to do a "buddy cop"
>franchise, what is wrong with NEW CHARACTERS?
Nothing per se other than the simple fact that Hollywood is
apparently lacking any sort of creative talent and are once again
raiding the fucking celluloid closets in order to "re-invent" another
successful work from yesterday's television.
I wonder how long it'll be before the producers drag Eric
Pierpoint (Detective Francisco) and Gary Graham (Detective "Shithead"
Sikes AKA Vulcan Ambassador Soval from "Enterprise") to doing some
sort of cameo like it's a blessing from the 1 season success... Better
still how many Alien Nation Fans will be cooing like teenage girls
that had just seen "Twilight" when they hear about them coming back
for a cameo?
Ubiquitous
>Sci Fi cops a remake of 'Alien' tale
ANOTHER remake?
>Sci Fi is also looking to broaden its footprint, as it preps to
>rebrand itself as "Syfy" next week.
HA! I can't wait to see it flop bigger than "new Coke", unless their
plan is to fail and make people demand they restore the original.
--
It is simply breathtaking to watch the glee and abandon with which
the liberal media and the Angry Left have been attempting to turn
our military victory in Iraq into a second Vietnam quagmire. Too bad
for them, it's failing.
Stan Brown
>
> In article <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> >original.
>
> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
and it wouldn't suck.
--
Stan Brown, Oak Road Systems, Tompkins County, New York, USA
http://OakRoadSystems.com/
"You may be the Universe's butt puppet, but I'm its right-
hand fist of fate." -- /Wonderfalls/
krp
Michael O'Connor
> Have they dropped that bomb yet?
I'd rather they did a faithful adaptation to the book.
Anim8rFSK
Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
> >
> > In article
> > <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> > >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> > >original.
> >
> > While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> > properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>
> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
> and it wouldn't suck.
Too science-fictiony.
--
Uncle Jack: "Will, you're invisible!"
Will: "Invisible? I can't be! I can touch myself!"
--actual dialog from third season LAND OF THE LOST
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7...@news.individual.net>,
> Stan Brown <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
>> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
>>> In article
>>> <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>>>> If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>>>> original.
>>> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
>>> properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
>> and it wouldn't suck.
>
> Too science-fictiony.
>
(Okay Ken, there's your assignment. Get a video up on YouTube showing
Bonnie Hammer dancing to that song.)
jason.cinema
> Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7984d0fb98b...@news.individual.net>,
> > Stan Brown <the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>
> >> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
> >>> In article
> >>> unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> >>>> If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> >>>> original.
> >>> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> >>> properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
> >> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
> >> and it wouldn't suck.
>
> > Too science-fictiony.
>
> "Its (Bonnie) Hammer Time!"
>
> (Okay Ken, there's your assignment. Get a video up on YouTube showing
> Bonnie Hammer dancing to that song.)
>
Personally, I'd rather see MC Hammer hitting her in the face with a
foam rubber hammer.
krp
"Michael O'Connor" <mpoco...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:aff8a563-c3f6-4b02...@l31g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> :
>> Have they dropped that bomb yet?
>
> I'd rather they did a faithful adaptation to the book.
DO "they" EVER do that? Aside from the gorgeous Jenny Auguter and Farrah
Fawcett, was there anything that made the first move worth watching? Maybe
Roscoe Brown as "Box?" It even managed to make Peter Ustinov seem silly.
What would make us think they'd suddenly do a BETTER film? Do they EVER?
Anim8rFSK
<6b754203-9dce-48b3...@24g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
"jason.cinema" <jason....@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 3, 3:39�pm, Dimensional Traveler <dtra...@sonic.net> wrote:
> > Anim8rFSK wrote:
> > > In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7984d0fb98b...@news.individual.net>,
> > > �Stan Brown <the stan br...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> >
> > >> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
> > >>> In article
> > >>> <95440207-9abb-443e-b172-c8a9d974b...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > >>> unfrostedpoptart �<da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> > >>>> If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> > >>>> original.
> > >>> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> > >>> properties they already own: �they don't have to pay as much.
> > >> So why not just re-show the original? �They'd have to pay even less,
> > >> and it wouldn't suck.
> >
> > > Too science-fictiony.
> >
> > "Its (Bonnie) Hammer Time!"
> >
> > (Okay Ken, there's your assignment. �Get a video up on YouTube showing
> > Bonnie Hammer dancing to that song.)
> >
>
> Personally, I'd rather see MC Hammer hitting her in the face with a
> foam rubber hammer.
why foam rubber?
drb
<the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote:
> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
>>
>> In article
>> <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>> unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>> >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>> >original.
>>
>> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
>> properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>
> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
> and it wouldn't suck.
>
>
The original series lasted just one season. I'm sure SYFY would like more
than that.
Dimensional Traveler
Barry Margolin
"krp" <kr...@verizon.net> wrote:
Maybe if the British did it. E.g. their version of "Day of the
Triffids".
--
Barry Margolin, bar...@alum.mit.edu
Arlington, MA
*** PLEASE don't copy me on replies, I'll read them in the group ***
krp
"Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
news:barmar-579800....@news.eternal-september.org...
>> >> Have they dropped that bomb yet?
>> >
>> > I'd rather they did a faithful adaptation to the book.
>>
>> DO "they" EVER do that? Aside from the gorgeous Jenny Auguter and Farrah
>> Fawcett, was there anything that made the first move worth watching?
>> Maybe
>> Roscoe Brown as "Box?" It even managed to make Peter Ustinov seem silly.
>> What would make us think they'd suddenly do a BETTER film? Do they EVER?
>
> Maybe if the British did it. E.g. their version of "Day of the
> Triffids".
It was largely British in the original. The main redeeming scenes in the
film was Jenny's nude scenes. Granted she's a beautiful woman, BUT, the
story was a bit thin. the book not much better. Light entertainment. I
grant, better than the pretentious remake of BSG, and the drivel that the
Stargate franchises degenerated into. (Lost in Space). So many remakes
discussed and dead. This Island Earth and the like. The best British SF
Quatermass and the pit. Now THAT was science fiction!
Michael Black
But at least "Logan's Run" was science fiction. Back in 1976, what
was available was pretty small in quantity. You went because it
was science fiction.
Yes, the movie doesn't look so good now. I watched it a month ago, and
I suddenly realized everyone was dressed like they were going to a night
at the swinger's club (which may have been deliberate). There are things
wrong with the implementation of the story, done later it would have had
the better special effects.
But the story is complete, and in some ways better than the book. That's
hard to judge, since I read the book after the movie (though not by much).
Here you have a simple story, civilization moved into a dome, they have
limited space so everyone above a certain age has to give up their space
so the new can come along. And of course, some don't like that idea, so
they run.
The book has a more complicated social setup, a much larger population
spread over multiple places, and of course, they aren't all hiding in a
dome. The dome works, and it's a story similar to "generation ships"
where the population has forgotten where they are, what might be out
there. The book has everyone being knocked off at 21, the movie puts
it at a more reasonable 30 ("reasonable" since 21 would tend to knock
everyone out before they had a chance of doing anything much, once
you take away maturing time and learning time).
What's clear, and it wasn't clear when I first saw it, is that nobody
got out before Logan and Jessica. They were caught by something along
the way, nobody knowing since people went to Sanctuary but nothing ever
came back. Box got at least some of them, but I'm not sure all since
it seemed like Logan and Jessica landed there because Francis shot at
them and the usual route was blocked.
Then they get out of the dome, and it's such a dramatic change. Light
is different, and suddenly it's no longer that swinger's convention motif,
instead it's nature that has reclaimed the world after man moved into the
dome. They find Peter Ustinov, and they react just like they would on
finding someone "so old". Jessica's touching his face reveals that,
a hesitancy, and then she pulls back at the first touch. Here is someone
who is not only old, but has lived pretty much alone forever. It seemed
like his parents were the only ones around, and then when they died he
had only the cats. That sets up an odd character in itself.
The book wasn't anything special. It travelled on the the then popular
notion of a youth culture, and of course a youth vote. It's not clear
whether it stands on its own merits, or was back in print and kept in
print for some years because of the movie. It did provide the basic
premise to the movie, and likely the movie went with the key details,
just as any book turned into a movie is likely to lose a lot of the book.
It's a simpler story, but then a movie is a simpler medium.
The story of the movie doesn't need updating. It was fine then, it's
fine now. Visually, it could be improved, but then you lose the actors
that were a significant part of the movie, and you lose a neat remembrance
from the teen years. You have another movie that tries to remake
something yet without any real need, other than because the old one is
old.
Michael
krp
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net...
> But at least "Logan's Run" was science fiction. Back in 1976, what
> was available was pretty small in quantity. You went because it
> was science fiction.
I agree. It was good for its day. The story sucked, the acting was
generally stilted. But it was fun.
> Yes, the movie doesn't look so good now. I watched it a month ago, and
> I suddenly realized everyone was dressed like they were going to a night
> at the swinger's club (which may have been deliberate). There are things
> wrong with the implementation of the story, done later it would have had
> the better special effects.
Well the whole story line was that the family was gone - that sex was
purely for hedonistic reasons. Births took place in a machine environment.
So it was all one swiinger party. That was the general idea of that society
it depicted.
> But the story is complete, and in some ways better than the book. That's
> hard to judge, since I read the book after the movie (though not by much).
> Here you have a simple story, civilization moved into a dome, they have
> limited space so everyone above a certain age has to give up their space
> so the new can come along. And of course, some don't like that idea, so
> they run.
Population control.
writerpatrick.webs.com
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net...
> On Sat, 4 Jul 2009, krp wrote:
>
>>
>> "Barry Margolin" <bar...@alum.mit.edu> wrote in message
>> news:barmar-579800....@news.eternal-september.org...
>>
>>>> >> Have they dropped that bomb yet?
>>>> >
>>>> > I'd rather they did a faithful adaptation to the book.
>>>>
>>>> DO "they" EVER do that? Aside from the gorgeous Jenny Auguter and
>>>> Farrah
>>>> Fawcett, was there anything that made the first move worth watching?
>>>> Maybe
>>>> Roscoe Brown as "Box?" It even managed to make Peter Ustinov seem
>>>> silly.
>>>> What would make us think they'd suddenly do a BETTER film? Do they
>>>> EVER?
>>
I found that part of the movie depressing (and if you think about it,
gross). It might have been more interesting had some actually escaped. The
TV series suggested outside patrols instead of Box.
> The book wasn't anything special. It travelled on the the then popular
> notion of a youth culture, and of course a youth vote. It's not clear
> whether it stands on its own merits, or was back in print and kept in
> print for some years because of the movie. It did provide the basic
> premise to the movie, and likely the movie went with the key details,
> just as any book turned into a movie is likely to lose a lot of the book.
> It's a simpler story, but then a movie is a simpler medium.
>
> The story of the movie doesn't need updating. It was fine then, it's
> fine now. Visually, it could be improved, but then you lose the actors
> that were a significant part of the movie, and you lose a neat remembrance
> from the teen years. You have another movie that tries to remake
> something yet without any real need, other than because the old one is
> old.
In some ways Starlost could be considered a variation on the story, since
the characters escape from a dome to discover they're on a ship. And that's
one that could definitely use a remake.
What might be interesting (and I've heard suggested) is for the Logan's Run
sequel books to be made into films. Of course they would probably want to go
back and re-do the first story so that it would fit with the sequels.
I've got the book but I've never got around to reading it. I guess I just
liked the movie too much (and the TV series) and I find it hard to read
movie-related books without thinking of the movie. I would also feel I had
to read the sequels.
--
Patrick McNamara
E-mail: patjmc...@gmail.com
Central Hub (Access to podcasts, blog and web stores):
http://writerpatrick.webs.com
My Toy Store: http://patrickjmcnamara.webs.com
Book Store: http://stores.lulu.com/store.php?fAcctID=139581
aemeijers
(snip)
>
> The story of the movie doesn't need updating. It was fine then, it's
> fine now. Visually, it could be improved, but then you lose the actors
> that were a significant part of the movie, and you lose a neat remembrance
> from the teen years. You have another movie that tries to remake
> something yet without any real need, other than because the old one is
> old.
>
> Michael
>
originals for what they are.
--
aem sends...
Hunter
the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
> >
> > In article <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> > >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> > >original.
> >
> > While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> > properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>
> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
> and it wouldn't suck.
Why do you assume a new version would "suck"?
aemeijers
> In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7...@news.individual.net>,
> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>> Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
>>> In article <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>>>> If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>>>> original.
>>> While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
>>> properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>> So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
>> and it wouldn't suck.
> ---
> Why do you assume a new version would "suck"?
Because remakes almost always do? Not a sure thing, but that is the way
to bet.
--
aem sends...
Stan Brown
>
> In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7...@news.individual.net>,
> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
> > Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
> > >
> > > In article <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
> > > unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
> > > >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
> > > >original.
> > >
> > > While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes of
> > > properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
> >
> > So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
> > and it wouldn't suck.
> ---
> Why do you assume a new version would "suck"?
Because most remakes do, relative to the originals. It's a special
case of Sturgeon's Law.
Arthur Lipscomb
"Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
news:MPG.24bb245b1...@news.individual.net...
> Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:34:58 -0400 from Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>:
>>
>> In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7...@news.individual.net>,
>> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>> > Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
>> > >
>> > > In article
>> > > <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>> > > unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>> > > >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>> > > >original.
>> > >
>> > > While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like remakes
>> > > of
>> > > properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>> >
>> > So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
>> > and it wouldn't suck.
>> ---
>> Why do you assume a new version would "suck"?
>
> Because most remakes do, relative to the originals. It's a special
> case of Sturgeon's Law.
>
> --
I don't think the quality or lack thereof of a remake has anything to do
with it being a remake it has more to do for a general bias in favor of the
version seen first. Whether it's James Bond, Doctor Who or sequels/remakes,
a person's preferred version will probably be whatever version they saw
first (as a child). But when the remake is liked, it's rarely if ever even
acknowledged to be a remake.
The overall majority of all programs tend to be on the substandard side
whether remake/sequel or original. It's just remakes and sequels have
better name recognition when it comes to naming the bad ones. For every
Galactica 1980 that will be remembered as a bad sequel there are 100 "The
Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer" that will be forgotten as a bad original.
Dimensional Traveler
>
> "Stan Brown" <the_sta...@fastmail.fm> wrote in message
> news:MPG.24bb245b1...@news.individual.net...
>> Sun, 5 Jul 2009 11:34:58 -0400 from Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>:
>>>
>>> In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7...@news.individual.net>,
>>> the_sta...@fastmail.fm says...
>>> > Wed, 1 Jul 2009 21:27:49 GMT from Sean Eric Fagan <s...@kithrup.com>:
>>> > >
>>> > > In article > >
>>> <95440207-9abb-443e...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
>>> > > unfrostedpoptart <da...@therogoffs.com> wrote:
>>> > > >If Minear and company had much talent, they'd try and do something
>>> > > >original.
>>> > >
>>> > > While I generally agree, there's a reason that studios like
>>> remakes > > of
>>> > > properties they already own: they don't have to pay as much.
>>> >
>>> > So why not just re-show the original? They'd have to pay even less,
>>> > and it wouldn't suck.
>>> ---
>>> Why do you assume a new version would "suck"?
>>
>> Because most remakes do, relative to the originals. It's a special
>> case of Sturgeon's Law.
>
> with it being a remake it has more to do for a general bias in favor of
> the version seen first. Whether it's James Bond, Doctor Who or
> sequels/remakes, a person's preferred version will probably be whatever
> version they saw first (as a child). But when the remake is liked, it's
> rarely if ever even acknowledged to be a remake.
>
> The overall majority of all programs tend to be on the substandard side
> whether remake/sequel or original. It's just remakes and sequels have
> better name recognition when it comes to naming the bad ones. For every
> Galactica 1980 that will be remembered as a bad sequel there are 100
> "The Secret Diary of Desmond Pfeiffer" that will be forgotten as a bad
> original.
There is also the not so slight matter that remakes/new versions are
almost without exception the work of one person (or worse, a network
committee) trying to "use" or emulate the voice/style/whathaveyou of
someone else. Making a good TV show is hard enough as it is, adding in
that significant difficulty..., well it doesn't make a lot of sense to me.
Obveeus
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
> There is also the not so slight matter that remakes/new versions are
> almost without exception the work of one person (or worse, a network
> committee) trying to "use" or emulate the voice/style/whathaveyou of
> someone else.
Remakes are not always attempts to emulate the original, though. The new
Star Trek is an excellent movie and it does not really attempt to emulate
the original's voice/style/whatever. The remake of Land of the Lost
apparently also avoids trying to emulate the original, though by all reports
it was a bad movie (I never saw it, but the original TV series was certainly
bad so they must have emulated that much ;-) ).
Up next: a movie remake of TJ Hooker...to which I can only ask: why oh why
would anyone bother remaking that?
writerpatrick.webs.com
"Obveeus" <Obv...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:h2snag$1e7$1...@news.motzarella.org...
>
> "Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>> There is also the not so slight matter that remakes/new versions are
>> almost without exception the work of one person (or worse, a network
>> committee) trying to "use" or emulate the voice/style/whathaveyou of
>> someone else.
>
> Remakes are not always attempts to emulate the original, though. The new
> Star Trek is an excellent movie and it does not really attempt to emulate
> the original's voice/style/whatever. The remake of Land of the Lost
> apparently also avoids trying to emulate the original, though by all
> reports it was a bad movie (I never saw it, but the original TV series was
> certainly bad so they must have emulated that much ;-) ).
>
Battlestar Galactica was an example of how to do a remake properly; use new
ideas but respect the original. The Get Smart remake worked because they
consulted with Mel Brooks and Buck Henry to get the characters right.
Andromeda was a remake of a series Roddenberry never could get to work.
In a sense, Star Trek has been remade a few times if you consider each
series, especially TNG, a remake. And even the first Star Trek movie (The
Motion Picture) was something of a remake as far as the costumes and look of
the movie went. So fans are more open to remaking Star Trek because they're
use to variations of it.
> Up next: a movie remake of TJ Hooker...to which I can only ask: why oh
> why would anyone bother remaking that?
It all depends upon how it's handled and who does it. Imagine a T.J. Hooker
with Colm Meaney? That could be good. However, a remake with Eddie Murphy
would be one to avoid. Although, aside from the character names and the show
name, it's certain to be completely different from the original.
The TV series for Alien Nation could be considered something of a remake of
the movie, as most TV shows derived from movies are. But it was no less
interesting. If they can be smart about not overdoing the sci-fi quality
they might pull it off. Alien Nation was more about human relationships than
aliens coming to Earth. However, they also run the risk of getting into a
lot of equality preaching when we've moved well past that. And they're
really got to be careful not to fall into the "Liberal-good,
Conservative-bad" ideology that dominates Hollywood right now. If anything,
a remake of Alien Nation could fail simply because of the times.
Obveeus
"writerpatrick.webs.com" <writer...@netzero.net> wrote:
> Battlestar Galactica was an example of how to do a remake properly; use
> new ideas but respect the original.
Agreed. The BSG remake threw a nod to the original, but it also evolved the
characters/world into something less trite.
>> Up next: a movie remake of TJ Hooker...to which I can only ask: why oh
>> why would anyone bother remaking that?
>
> It all depends upon how it's handled and who does it. Imagine a T.J.
> Hooker with Colm Meaney? That could be good. However, a remake with Eddie
> Murphy would be one to avoid. Although, aside from the character names and
> the show name, it's certain to be completely different from the original.
Any 'cop show' could be termed as a remake of TJ Hooker, on that level. My
question is: why even port over the name 'TJ Hooker'? Is there anyone
actually out there pining away for more of that particular character/show?
> The TV series for Alien Nation could be considered something of a remake
> of the movie, as most TV shows derived from movies are. But it was no less
> interesting. If they can be smart about not overdoing the sci-fi quality
> they might pull it off. Alien Nation was more about human relationships
> than aliens coming to Earth. However, they also run the risk of getting
> into a lot of equality preaching when we've moved well past that. And
> they're really got to be careful not to fall into the "Liberal-good,
> Conservative-bad" ideology that dominates Hollywood right now. If
> anything, a remake of Alien Nation could fail simply because of the times.
TRhe TV series did a great job with the subject matter. I agree with you
that they have to walk a line to avoid getting 'too preachy' and they also
have to deal with the fact that 'racial issues' aren't going to have the
same impact as they did even a decade or two ago. However, the show still
has some strong issues that it could parallel today. For example, gay
rights (our world) compared with 'Alien' rights (Alien Nation world). Same
goes for the very concept of marriage (two people) vs. (group marriage);
hey, Alien Nation could follow in the footsteps of Big Love. ;-) Also, the
racial stuff could still be done to raise issues with the illegal alien
debate going on in this country today. Nothing says that a remake actually
has to establish the Aliens as having full citizenship. They could get
their own area (say the desert in Southeastern California) and then a bunch
of them could have 'green cards' to work in LA...with many more creeping
around as 'illegal aliens'. the show could then run parallels with
Israel/Gaza/Palistinians as well as US/Mexico.
Dimensional Traveler
least as bad an idea. If you've got your own story to tell, then just
do so. Why try to shoehorn it in to the limits of someone else's creation?
Arthur Lipscomb
"Dimensional Traveler" <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4a524d25$0$1671$742e...@news.sonic.net...
Getting the project green lit in the first place and then getting people to
show up at the theaters...
If I'm trying to decide between ten different generic cop movies I may or
may not see then the one called TJ Hooker (with a cameo from original cast
members) has the advantage. Doesn't guarantee I'm going to see it but
having some passing familiarity or nostalgia definitely helps.
Besides there's no guarantee the limits of the original will be honored.
They may take the names or general premise and then otherwise abandon the
original source material. When someone doesn't like the remake it's easier
to just point out the differences from the original. For example Battlestar
Galactica sucked because they made Starbuck a girl or the Cylons look
human...Basically, it's bad because it's *different*.
I'm looking forward to the new Alien Nation. Of course if I don't like it,
I'm sure there will be plenty of differences from the original I can find to
complain about. It sucks because they changed Sam Francisco (George) to Sam
Jose.
Hunter
news.ops.worldnet.att.net>, aeme...@att.net says...
Well they don't always suck as you concede The do well enough to try
With the favorable remakes/reboots of "Battlestar Galactica" and
"Star Trek" I am certainly willing to try with "Alien Nation" but yes
outings like the then new "Lost in Space" about eleven years ago
shows there could be turkeys. But I say give it a try if it is a
turkey then ignore it. But if it is at least as good then we will
have something to talk about.
The next remake I would love to see is Voyage to the Bottom of the
Sea" (No I don't count "seaQuest DSV" as a VttBotS remake) with a new
and improved USOS Seaview; although I do admit it will be hard to
come up with stories every week in Earth's oceans that would be
believable given what is happening in real life. The oceans aren't as
mysterious as they use to be in the 1960's.
Mark Nobles
If I remember that show, and it was a long time ago, it was very much a
Cold War environment, not nearly as science-fictiony as seaquest. And
seaquest was Star Trek Beneath the Sea (which would be a great party
theme for Greek or Big Bang Theory, wouldn't it?) Anyway, does anybody
these days want something set in the Cold War era that isn't 24?
How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
himiko
> > > Hunter wrote:
> > > > In article <MPG.24b7c4ec7984d0fb98b...@news.individual.net>,
> > > > the_stan_br...@fastmail.fm says...> > > >>> <95440207-9abb-443e-b172-c8a9d974b...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>,
You are cruel and unusual. ;)
himiko (with two little hearts dotting the i s)
Ian J. Ball
> of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
> dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
I'm going to vote NO! on this... :/
Ian (Actually, just remake "Jeannie" exactly the same as it was
(except for a much, much skimpier costume, and a more voluptuous
actress - say, someone like Noureen Dewulf, who'd have the right
'look'...) - the show would be so 'anti-feminist' in current terms,
that the hue & cry & outrage it would generate among certain segments
would pretty much *guarantee* boffo ratings!! :> )
Anim8rFSK
<6b26d5d6-2a30-4edd...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
"Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
> On Jul 8, 12:29�pm, Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
> >
> > How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
> > of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
> > dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
>
> I'm going to vote NO! on this... :/
>
>
> Ian (Actually, just remake "Jeannie" exactly the same as it was
> (except for a much, much skimpier costume, and a more voluptuous
no navels!
> actress - say, someone like Noureen Dewulf, who'd have the right
> 'look'...) -
eh. I want a blonde.
the show would be so 'anti-feminist' in current terms,
> that the hue & cry & outrage it would generate among certain segments
> would pretty much *guarantee* boffo ratings!! :> )
--
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
I prefer the SSRN Seaview myself
> > come up with stories every week in Earth's oceans that would be
> > believable given what is happening in real life. The oceans aren't as
> > mysterious as they use to be in the 1960's.
>
> If I remember that show, and it was a long time ago, it was very much a
> Cold War environment, not nearly as science-fictiony as seaquest. And
> seaquest was Star Trek Beneath the Sea (which would be a great party
> theme for Greek or Big Bang Theory, wouldn't it?) Anyway, does anybody
> these days want something set in the Cold War era that isn't 24?
>
>
>
> How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
> of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
> dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
--
Adam H. Kerman
>Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>On Jul 8, 12:29 pm, Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
>>>of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
>>>dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
>>I'm going to vote NO! on this... :/
>>Ian (Actually, just remake "Jeannie" exactly the same as it was
>>(except for a much, much skimpier costume, and a more voluptuous
>no navels!
>>actress - say, someone like Noureen Dewulf, who'd have the right
>>'look'...) -
>eh. I want a blonde.
With Jeannie, you'll never get exactly what you want, will you.
Instead of remaking Jeannie exactly the same as it was, how about
casting someone as Tony who can act? Larry Hagman was just awful. Why
was Jeannie in love with him? Hayden Rorke did most of the comedy.
I thought some of their best episodes were during first season. It was
less formulaic and there was a bit of meloncholy in a few episodes with
Jeannie trying to fit in. The episode in which Jeannie wanted to appear on
television but couldn't because she didn't show up on video was very
effective and moving. (What was she, a vampire?) Jeannie and Tony shared
an emotional moment when he comforted her, which they rarely did in the
color episodes.
Dimensional Traveler
> In article
> <6b26d5d6-2a30-4edd...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>
>> On Jul 8, 12:29 pm, Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>> How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
>>> of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
>>> dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
>> I'm going to vote NO! on this... :/
>>
>>
>> Ian (Actually, just remake "Jeannie" exactly the same as it was
>> (except for a much, much skimpier costume, and a more voluptuous
>
> no navels!
>
>> actress - say, someone like Noureen Dewulf, who'd have the right
>> 'look'...) -
>
> eh. I want a blonde.
>
Mind you, I have no idea what Noureen Dewulf looks like but hair color
in this day & age is a variable, not a constant.
Anim8rFSK
Like all series that existed in both black and white and color, IDoJ was
better in black and white. It's the closest to a series that was better
in color though.
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
I looked her up; she'd look awful as a blonde. I mean, Tracy Scoggins
as Cat Grant bad.
http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Noureen+Dewulf&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
Dimensional Traveler
> In article <4a552828$0$1596$742e...@news.sonic.net>,
> Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
>> Anim8rFSK wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <6b26d5d6-2a30-4edd...@v37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>,
>>> "Ian J. Ball" <ib...@san.rr.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jul 8, 12:29 pm, Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>> How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
>>>>> of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
>>>>> dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
>>>> I'm going to vote NO! on this... :/
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Ian (Actually, just remake "Jeannie" exactly the same as it was
>>>> (except for a much, much skimpier costume, and a more voluptuous
>>> no navels!
>>>
>>>> actress - say, someone like Noureen Dewulf, who'd have the right
>>>> 'look'...) -
>>> eh. I want a blonde.
>>>
>> *hands Anim a bottle of peroxide*
>>
>> Mind you, I have no idea what Noureen Dewulf looks like but hair color
>> in this day & age is a variable, not a constant.
>
> I looked her up; she'd look awful as a blonde. I mean, Tracy Scoggins
> as Cat Grant bad.
>
> http://images.google.com/images?hl=en&q=Noureen+Dewulf&gbv=2&aq=f&oq=
>
was....
Mark Nobles
> "writerpatrick.webs.com" <writer...@netzero.net> wrote:
>
> > Battlestar Galactica was an example of how to do a remake properly; use
> > new ideas but respect the original.
>
> Agreed. The BSG remake threw a nod to the original, but it also evolved the
> characters/world into something less trite.
>
> >> Up next: a movie remake of TJ Hooker...to which I can only ask: why oh
> >> why would anyone bother remaking that?
> >
> > It all depends upon how it's handled and who does it. Imagine a T.J.
> > Hooker with Colm Meaney? That could be good. However, a remake with Eddie
> > Murphy would be one to avoid. Although, aside from the character names and
> > the show name, it's certain to be completely different from the original.
>
> Any 'cop show' could be termed as a remake of TJ Hooker, on that level. My
> question is: why even port over the name 'TJ Hooker'? Is there anyone
> actually out there pining away for more of that particular character/show?
I can think of only one reason: to bring Heather Locklear back as the
same character, 30 years later and approaching retirement.
>
> > The TV series for Alien Nation could be considered something of a remake
> > of the movie, as most TV shows derived from movies are. But it was no less
> > interesting. If they can be smart about not overdoing the sci-fi quality
> > they might pull it off. Alien Nation was more about human relationships
> > than aliens coming to Earth. However, they also run the risk of getting
> > into a lot of equality preaching when we've moved well past that. And
> > they're really got to be careful not to fall into the "Liberal-good,
> > Conservative-bad" ideology that dominates Hollywood right now. If
> > anything, a remake of Alien Nation could fail simply because of the times.
>
> TRhe TV series did a great job with the subject matter. I agree with you
> that they have to walk a line to avoid getting 'too preachy' and they also
> have to deal with the fact that 'racial issues' aren't going to have the
> same impact as they did even a decade or two ago. However, the show still
> has some strong issues that it could parallel today. For example, gay
> rights (our world) compared with 'Alien' rights (Alien Nation world). Same
> goes for the very concept of marriage (two people) vs. (group marriage);
> hey, Alien Nation could follow in the footsteps of Big Love. ;-) Also, the
> racial stuff could still be done to raise issues with the illegal alien
> debate going on in this country today. Nothing says that a remake actually
> has to establish the Aliens as having full citizenship. They could get
> their own area (say the desert in Southeastern California) and then a bunch
> of them could have 'green cards' to work in LA...with many more creeping
> around as 'illegal aliens'. the show could then run parallels with
> Israel/Gaza/Palistinians as well as US/Mexico.
>
Or the newcomers could have established themselves as a completely
separate nation on its own reservation, with a very successful economy
based on the suppression of the individual to support the collective
good. After years of sacrifice not much different from their former
state of slavery, they have reached a point where individuals are
finding themselves with extra money for the first time, and the nation
is rich enough to demand more respect and becoming fairly aggressive
about it.
--
You fell victim to one of the classic blunders! The most famous is
never get involved in a land war in Asia, but only slightly less
well-known is this: never go in against a Sicilian when death is on the
line!
Mark Nobles
> On Wed, 1 Jul 2009 20:07:52 -0400, Hunter <buffh...@my-deja.com>
> wrote:
>
> >"Alien Nation" wasn't doing that
> >badly anyway.
...
> >I think it got the same treatment "Rome" got on HBO: A
> >show doing well in the ratings but was simply to expensive to
> >maintain despite the ratings. After all if it was doing that bad why
> >make several follow up movies?
>
> The same reason why any studio makes sequels and follow-ups...
> To see if there's enough of a fan base for a revival.
They expect each sequel to make money on its own, squeezing every drop
of value from the idea until nothing is left but the hard, dry shell.
Then the remake takes that shell, soaks it in new money and calls the
infusion "freshly squeezed."
Anim8rFSK
Dimensional Traveler <dtr...@sonic.net> wrote:
Yes, although it was never clear to me* if Barbara Eden was supposed to
have ever even been human, or if she looked the same to every master.
*I'm not sure they were consistent about whatever they told us either.
Gah. From WIKI:
writer/director Gurinder Chadha, who had been set to direct the remake,
lost the job because of her lack of knowledge of the show and its
initial success. Chadha suggested a possible storyline which would be
somewhat darker than the original series, with Jeannie as a headstrong
girl who is punished for becoming a soldier by being imprisoned in a
bottle as a genie (She pitched her proposed film as being "a male action
film with a female lead.") As Columbia Pictures began to see the
direction Chadha was going, it is rumored they cancelled that idea and
told her to create a storyline more closely relating to the original
show. Upon her inability to do so, Columbia released Chadha from her
contract.
Chada was also scheduled to direct the movie of Dallas.
Why would anybody think any of that is a good idea???
Anim8rFSK
Mark Nobles <cmn-n...@comcast.net> wrote:
> > Any 'cop show' could be termed as a remake of TJ Hooker, on that level. My
> > question is: why even port over the name 'TJ Hooker'? Is there anyone
> > actually out there pining away for more of that particular character/show?
>
> I can think of only one reason: to bring Heather Locklear back as the
> same character, 30 years later and approaching retirement.
The reason is, you can't sell anything original as original. If you
pitch an idea to a producer, the immediate reply is "Oh, it's like xxx"
even if that doesn't make sense to anyone but them.
"This is a script about a female military officer in Australia"
"Oh, so it's like 'I Dream of Jeannie' and what she did before becoming
trapped in the bottle, and we can get that hot chick from CHUCK to be in
it and won't even need a dialect coach - brilliant!"
It's easier to just freaking pitch "Jeannie" or "Hooker" than to come at
it backwards.
And, yes, the idea of that hot chick from CHUCK as Jeannie is brilliant
. . .
Kate
> In article <090720090640154999%cmn-nos...@comcast.net>,
> Mark Nobles <cmn-nos...@comcast.net> wrote:
>
> > > Any 'cop show' could be termed as a remake of TJ Hooker, on that level. My
> > > question is: why even port over the name 'TJ Hooker'? Is there anyone
> > > actually out there pining away for more of that particular character/show?
>
> > I can think of only one reason: to bring Heather Locklear back as the
> > same character, 30 years later and approaching retirement.
>
> The reason is, you can't sell anything original as original. If you
> pitch an idea to a producer, the immediate reply is "Oh, it's like xxx"
> even if that doesn't make sense to anyone but them.
Which is why there's so little good on TV anymore.
Although, I can't really blame them when no one will actually watch
something that's fresh and original (Yes, I AM still sobbing in my
cereal about Pushing Daisies).
So I guess the fault really lies with US, the viewers.
Want fresh, original shows? Then WATCH them, for Pete's sake!
Kate
Obveeus
"Kate" <khal...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Although, I can't really blame them when no one will actually watch
>something that's fresh and original (Yes, I AM still sobbing in my
>cereal about Pushing Daisies).
>
>So I guess the fault really lies with US, the viewers.
Agreed. The reason for so much bad TV is that that crap is what most people
apparently want to watch.
>Want fresh, original shows? Then WATCH them, for Pete's sake!
People claim they want something original, but what they really want is yet
another version of CSI/L&O/NCIS/etc...
It is a real shame when shows like Pushing Daisies, Life on Mars, The
Unusuals, Reaper, Easy Money, etc... can't get an audience, but 30+ million
people will tune in for a Michael Jackson funeral.
...and, to keep the CSI mentality happy, the news this morning is featuring
a cemetery near Chicago where hundreds of bodies were dumped in piles so
that the burial plots could be re-sold to other people. No doubt, Cold
Case, CSI, and etc... will be working up rough draft episode scripts on this
theme before the sun sets tonight.
Ubiquitous
> Yes, the movie doesn't look so good now. I watched it a month ago, and
> I suddenly realized everyone was dressed like they were going to a night
> at the swinger's club (which may have been deliberate).
That WAS the point, IIRC. Their lives were a thirty-year party.
Michael Black
I'm not taking issue with how they spent their time. It's the costumes,
they really seem dated.
Michael
krp
"Michael Black" <et...@ncf.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.LNX.4.64.09...@darkstar.example.net...
Yes, VERY 60's miniskirts.
Dimensional Traveler
announced....
trag
> The next remake I would love to see is Voyage to the Bottom of the
> Sea" (No I don't count "seaQuest DSV" as a VttBotS remake) with a new
> and improved USOS Seaview; although I do admit it will be hard to
> come up with stories every week in Earth's oceans that would be
> believable given what is happening in real life. The oceans aren't as
> mysterious as they use to be in the 1960's.
How about Voyage to the Bottom of the Sea on a newly settled non-Earth
planet? Then you could have anything, plenty of mystery, and if one
assumes that Earth sea life has been introduced, lovable dolphins can
show up whenever needed.
And it would kind of make sense. They're voyaging around there
exploring the oceans of their new planet. That gives them believable
purpose.
Hunter
nos...@comcast.net says...
Doesn't mean it can't be remade and I don't think, as I said, that
seQuest DSV really counts as a latter day VttBotS and like all
remakes it can be updated. It doesn't have to be set in the Cold War
era. And when was "24" ever set in the the Cold War?
> How about something completely different, a re-imagination of "I Dream
> of Djinni" with Alyssa Milano as Major Toni (with a little heart
> dotting the i) Nelson, astronaut, and Tom Lenk as Gene.
Don't care either way since I wasn't an "I Dream of Jeanie" fan (yes
I know you are being sarcastic).
Mark Nobles
Yeah, that's kind of unclear. I meant that if there were to be a show
set in the Cold War, it would only work if it's a 24 clone, not that 24
is anything but the War on Terror.